- Mention of guys in underwear? CHECK
- Jerry Rice having bad measurables? CHECK (although the actual measurables would have been nice)
- Mike Mamula? CHECK (check-minus for comparing Vernon Gholston to him, though; Mamula had 13.5 sacks through his first two years; Gholston doesn't even have 13 tackles)
- Mentions of heart and desire not being measured at Combine? CHECK

He gets bonus points for tying the article into the Winter Olympics somehow, but loses points for not mentioning "bubble" anywhere throughout the article. Overall, about a B as far as "Articles about the Combine from people who are representing that they have no idea what the Combine is for" go.

I appreciate the marginal info a combine can give. It's the over-the-top over-reaction that comes from some of these things that makes me want to strangle people (talking heads like Kiper and McShay as well as actual NFL decision-makers).

A guy plays four years, has a substantial body of work (good or bad), then after a few drills his "stock" could plummet or skyrocket, respectively. The minute sample size over-reaction is beyond ridiculous. A scrub could have a 2 TD game, but no one would project him to average 2 TDs a game in the NFL based on that one miraculous performance. But if that scrub somehow has the best 4.35 seconds of his life, all of a sudden he's jumped four rounds. It's moronic. It doesn't matter how fast he is without pads in a straight line. Whatever his track stats, he's proven over a large sample against college competition that he can't perform at a decent level. Why would you completely change your opinion of his ability to perform at the NFL level because of this info? It's marginal info, not the bulk of his qualifications.

This is why I hate 40 times and shuttle runs and all the other drills. The proof is in the game play, not structured practice, yet people lend these drills way too much weight and it leads to some remarkably moronic decisions.

Now if a WR ran a 4.00 40, who had a total of 35 catches in college for 1500 yards and 12 TDs, that might make an interesting situational player. I think that is the combine's strength, identifiyng players who may have been underutilized in college who may have one certain skill that they excel at but who aren't all around players. Therefore a first or second round pick's "stock" shouldn't be affected by the combine much if at all.

This completely overlooks the variety of competitiveness in NCAA football. A guy who's a scrub at Florida might look like a superstar at Appalachian State. The combine gives you at least some attempt at a basis for comparison.

I think the combine has more value in determining who should fall in the rankings than who should rise. If NCAAs best (statistically) wide receiver is 5'6" and runs a 5 second 40 yard dash, it's pretty safe to say he's not worth a top ten pick. That may be an extreme example but if the guy runs a 4.6 and he was mostly used as a deep threat in college you can reliably say he's not going to be your deep threat and change your evaluation accordingly.

Pfft, I suspect the scouts telegraph the 40 times to Al Davis, who takes them down by hand and makes a ditto sheet for John Herrera, who then spends the better part of an afternoon sorting them out and ciphering on the slide rule.

1. Get drunk.
2. Throw darts at a map.
3. Go to the nearest large library.
4. Get the phone book of the nearest town to where the dart hit.
5. Turn to the page matching the last 3 digits of the current time.
6. Close your eyes and point.
7. Call the number you're pointing at--the first person to answer is your new NFL player.

Under no circumstances should the internet be used instead of steps 3 and 4, because then the method would not be idiotic enough.

You know what you don't have? Similar articles about the usefulness of whatever the NHL uses to rate their own draft. Why? No one cares. Any sportswriter can write any drivel about the NFL draft right about now and get many more hits than almost any other subject, including college and professional basketball, the olympics, and spring training baseball. The NFL rules, and this is the consequenses of being the king: oversaturation.

I agree that the combine by itself is a bad way to pick future NFL talent, but this is not what any NFL team uses it for. It is supplemental to the body of work the players have already developed in their college years. The biggest difference from college and nfl players is their physicality. You go from playing teenagers to grown men. While someone may dominate college competition, they might lack the speed, strength, agility, etc to do so at the next level. That is what the combine is there for, to answer questions and fill in any blanks scouts/coaches/organizations have about players. Nothing speaks more about a player than film, but the combine is a great way for players to show how much they improve physically over a few months time, which gives insight into work ethic and future potential development. Guys at the combine are 20-22 years old, and don't normally reach a physical peak until 25-30.

The thing about the combine, like any part of the NFL draft process, is that you can use a few outliers to justify your conclusion. Guys like Jerry Rice and Zach Thomas had bad measurables but were great pros, so the combine is a sham. On the other hand, career backups like Matt Cassel did well enough to get a roster spot and parlay that into a successful career, so the combine must work. I agree that rating a player a few rounds higher on the draft based solely on the combine is questionable, but it's needed to provide basis for who will be the best NFL player.

Ultimately though, the draft is a crapshoot. The classic "chicken or the egg" argument is whether or not succcesful organizations are good drafters, or simply have better systems in place for grooming young players and maximizing their strengths while keeping their weaknesses from being exposed too early. I don't think guys like Garcon or Collie would have grown nearly as much in Cleveland or Oakland, but a guy like Darren McFadden may have had a much easier time transitioning if he played for New England or Pittsburgh.

First, the NFL's belief in something does not make it so. The league could think it has value, and be wrong.

Second, since we're talking about the NFL "as a business," the Combine's "value" might simply be as a way to generate news stories about the league (that don't involve legal infractions) during these supremely dull months.

That said, I don't think teams would spend quite as much time and effort there if they didn't think it was worth something, and although my first point remains (thinking doesn't make it so), I do think front-office personnel with years of experience in these matters are probably a better judge of such things than I am.

I sometimes wonder if bigs "moves" up or down draft-board's of the Kiper's of the world has more to do with them finding out more information at the combine about how teams have players ranked, and adjusting their own rankings accordingly, than reactions to the combine numbers themselves.

The Combine gets criticism because it somehow enables a mediocre OLB like Aaron Curry to get drafted in the top 5 because he can run 40 yards in a straight line really fast and looks good in spandex, or something like that.

You must have missed the whole Aaron Curry being a Freshman All American, two time All-ACC, being a First Team All American and everyone calling him the safest pick in the Draft(even before the combine).

I think I read a Maycock article in which he said the combine was a way for a guy to show you something so you could go back and compare it to the tape. The physical part alone makes it a very useful tool also.

The Combine is useful to draw your attention to certain prospects who stand out for one reason or another, and then force you to go back and watch their game film more closely.

I saw some interview somewhere in which they talked about Jeff Fisher watching Chris Johnson set the Combine record in the 40 yard dash, which prompted him to research CJ as a prospect more closely, after having mostly ignored him prior to the Combine.

In that situation, doing something outstanding such as running a sub 4.3 40 will do wonders, and rightfully so, for the draft status of a running back from a more obscure school who wasn't rated so highly before the Combine.

The combine is useful because it is nice to have all the top prospects in the draft in the same venue. The NBA has a combine, the NHL has a combine and even the MLS has a combine. But, no one complains about those combines because none of those sports are as big as Pro or College Football.

Every article talking about how overrated the Combine is list examples of Jerry Rice/Brian Westbrook, or busts like Williamson/TEN's Chris Henry/Tye Hill, but no one ever mentions in their articles the Johnny Knox, Dustin Keller, Steve Smith v2.0, Tyrell Johnson, that saw their stock rising after the combine, and ended up being good players/solid prospects.
Or players like Ali Highsmith, that flamed out after looking like solid prospects (only one that comes to mind, I though he could be a good WLB pick in the 3rd round for the Eagles before his workouts).

Plus Mamula is always listed as one of the biggest bust of all time, while he was a solid pass rusher that the Eagles thought would be an every down DE. Should have been picked 2 rounds later, but I'm pretty sure that I can find 20/30 bigger busts drafted since.

I never understood the Mike Mumala being the poster boy of the "workout warrior". He was someone who was extremely productive in college(he had 11 sacks as a junior and 17 sacks as a senior) and who was a solid defensive end until injuries derailed his career in 2000